Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism

Abstract

This study explores the nature of interactions and relationships between volunteer tourists and their hosts by using social exchange theory. A qualitative research methodology utilising semi-structured, in-depth interviews and participant observation was adopted. The informants included fourteen volunteer tourists, on a working vacation at the Special Education Centre of Ranong Province, and nineteen staff members of the centre. Analysis of the data revealed that the interactions and relationships between the volunteer tourists and the hosts were equal, reciprocal and rewarding; neither acted only for the purpose of satisfying their own needs/expectations, but rather in ways that could benefit one another. In other words, they did not just seek to “take”, but also intended to “give”, which may be part of the unique nature of volunteer tourism, where volunteer tourists are driven by altruistic motivations and are viewed as different from other tourists by their hosts. Such mutual, rewarding interactions and relationships brought benefits to both groups and were sufficient for them to decide to be involved in volunteer tourism in the future.

Full text

RESEARCH PAPER 177
Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism
Raweewan Proyrungroj
1
*
Received: 25/05/2016 Accepted: 14/09/2016
1
Tourism Industry and Hospitality Management Programme, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Suan
Sunandha Rajabhat University, 1 U-Thong Nok, Dusit, Bangkok, Thailand, 10300; E-mail:
raweewan.pr@ssru.ac.th, miss_raweewan_18@yahoo.com
* Corresponding author
Abstract
This study explores the nature of interactions and relationships between volunteer tourists and their
hosts by using social exchange theory. A qualitative research methodology utilising semi-
structured, in-depth interviews and participant observation was adopted. The informants included
fourteen volunteer tourists, on a working vacation at the Special Education Centre of Ranong
Province, and nineteen staff members of the centre. Analysis of the data revealed that the
interactions and relationships between the volunteer tourists and the hosts were equal, reciprocal
and rewarding; neither acted only for the purpose of satisfying their own needs/expectations, but
rather in ways that could benefit one another. In other words, they did not just seek to “take”, but
also intended to “give”, which may be part of the unique nature of volunteer tourism, where
volunteer tourists are driven by altruistic motivations and are viewed as different from other tourists
by their hosts. Such mutual, rewarding interactions and relationships brought benefits to both groups
and were sufficient for them to decide to be involved in volunteer tourism in the future.
© 2017 Varna University of Management. All rights reserved
Keywords: Host-guest relationship, interactions, volunteer tourism, volunteer tourists, hosts.
Citation: Proyrungroj, R. (2017) Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
Introduction
Volunteer tourism is a growing form of
alternative tourism. Annually, more than 1.6
million individuals pay to take part in volunteer
tourism (Mostafanezhad, 2013). This form of
tourism can be characterised as an integrated
combination of “travel’ and “volunteerism”
(Raymond & Hall, 2008); in other words, it is a
form of holiday or tourism that contains a
component of volunteering in the community of
the destination the tourists visit.
Volunteer tourism originated in Western
countries, mainly Europe and the UK; it then
expanded to other regions including
participants from the US, Australia, Asia, and
Africa (Alexander, 2012; Lo & Lee, 2011;
Wearing & McGehee, 2013). This type of
tourism has been very popular among
Westerners. Based on a study by Tourism
Research and Marketing (TRAM, 2008),
volunteer tourism has experienced significant
growth over the past two decades:

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
178
Source: GoAbroad.com (2016)
Figure 1. Number of volunteer tourism programmes offered in each region
approximately 120,000 travellers from the US
and UK volunteer abroad annually.
A combination of factors has facilitated the
phenomenal growth of volunteer tourism, inclu-
ding the growth of mass tourism on a global
scale (Callanan & Thomas, 2005; TRAM, 2008;
Tomazos & Butler, 2009) and the power of the
media (Callanan & Thomas, 2005) to reveal
other cultures to people, especially those from
developed or Western countries, making them
more aware of “the explicit divisions between
the “haves” and “have-nots” in the society”,
thereby inspiring them to do something more
worthwhile and meaningful through volunteer
tourism (Callanan & Thomas, 2005: 185).
Moreover, terrorism and natural disasters that
have occurred in many countries also
contribute to the growth of volunteer tourism.
The industry report “Volunteer Travel Insights
2009” reveals that the 9/11 incident in the US in
2001 and the Boxing Day tsunami that hit many
countries in Southeast Asia in 2004 serve as
important factors that motivate a number of
people around the world to take a holiday that
involved volunteering in the destinations where
natural disasters occurred (Nestora, Yeung, &
Calderon, 2009).
Kontogeorgopoulos (2016) argues that the pre-
trip motivations of volunteer tourists, particu-
larly a desire for authenticity, have a role in the
popularity and growth of volunteer tourism
around the world. He points out that tourists in
high-income countries are increasingly aware
that conventional tourism experiences take
place in artificial environments and create
negative consequences for local communities,
therefore, they seek for a form of alternative
tourism that can provide authentic experiences.
In addition, Wearing & McGehee (2013) point
out other factors that have also played an
important role in the growth and popularity of
volunteer tourism, such as a reduction in
barriers to travel, an increase in the size of the
middle class in many developing countries, and

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
179
the desire of the middle class to gain more
meaningful tourism experiences.
The growth of volunteer tourism is reflected
through the growing number of volunteer
tourism programmes offered (TRAM, 2008;
Tomazos& Butler, 2009). Callanan& Thomas
(2005) explored the scale of volunteer tourism
in 2003 by utilising the Volunteer Abroad
database and found that there were 698
volunteer tourism programmes available
worldwide. Tomazos & Butler (2009) built on
this study and examined the growth of
volunteer tourism using the same database,
finding that by 2007 the number of volunteer
tourism programmes had risen dramatically to
2,446, around 3.5 times higher than in 2003.
Recent data in the same database shows that
the number of volunteer tourism programmes
continues to experience phenomenal growth: in
May 2016, there is a total of 5,675 programmes
offered around the world (GoAbroad.com,
2016). The number of volunteer tourism
programs offered in each region is shown in
Figure 1.
The main destinations for Western volunteer
tourists are often less privileged or developing
countries (Simpson, 2004; Tomazos & Butler,
2009; TRAM, 2008; Zahra & McIntosh, 2007).
These countries are also referred to as “Third
World” countries. According to TRAM (2008), in
2007, Latin America was listed as the single
most popular region for volunteering
placements, representing 36 percent of the
destinations offered by volunteer tourism
organisations. It was followed by Asia (28
percent) and Africa (25 percent). Together
these three regions represented almost 90 per
cent of all the volunteer tourism destinations.
Similarly, Morgan (2010) reveals that these
three regions are the most popular regions for
volunteering placement (albeit in a different
order: in this study, Africa ranked first, with Asia
second and Latin America third).
Mostafanezhad (2013) shows that Western
volunteer tourists were generally interested in
volunteering in a “Third World” country, rather
than their home countries, because they
believe that the “Third World” was where help
is most needed and their contribution could
have real impact.
Volunteer tourism is relatively new in Thailand.
Its name appeared officially for the first time as
“a promising future niche-market” in the
Tourism Authority of Thailand’s 2011 marketing
strategy plan for the European region (Tourism
Authority of Thailand, 2010). Sources, such as
the Asian Development Bank (2005),
Mostafanezhad (2014), Kontogeorgopoulos
(2016), the United Nations Thailand (2008),
and the United Nations Environment
Programme (2005), point out that following the
2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, a number of
international volunteers from across the world
were attracted to the tsunami-affected areas in
Thailand, Thailand has become one of the
most popular destinations for international
volunteer tourists.
Mostafanezhad (2014) points out that the
growth and popularity of international volunteer
tourism in Thailand also stems from the well-
known humanitarian work of celebrities such as
Angelina Jolie and Ricky Martin, which have
been widely highlighted in media coverage, like
as a time magazine article, “Vacationing like
Brangelina” (Fitzpatrick, 2007) and a CNN
article, “Do celebs like Jolie inspire
voluntourism?” (Vasquez, 2010).
Mostafanezhad (2014) found from her study on
volunteer tourism in Thailand that volunteer
tourists described Angelina Jolie’s
humanitarian work as their inspiration to
participate in volunteer tourism vacations.
Despite the rapid growth and popularity of
volunteer tourism, studies of volunteer tourism
are still limited. In addition, existing studies of
volunteer tourism to date have been
fragmented by focusing solely on the
perspective of volunteer tourists, such as their
motivations and/or experiences (e.g. Andereck,
McGehee, Lee, & Clemmons, 2012; Barbieri,
Santos, & Katsube, 2011; Broad, 2003; Brown,
2005; Carter, 2008; Harlow & Pomfret, 2007;
Lepp, 2009; Lo & Lee, 2011; Sin, 2009) or the
perspective of the residents in host
communities (e.g. Holmes, Smith, Lockstone-
Binney, & Baum, 2010; McGehee & Andereck,
2009; Sin, 2010). In fact, both volunteer tourists
and local residents are major players in
volunteer tourism and play a very significant
role in the success and sustainability of the
development of volunteer tourism; thus,

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
180
understanding the perspective of only one party
provides only half the picture. Therefore, to
gain a complete picture of the phenomenon,
the perspectives of and relationships between
these two groups should be obtained. Thus,
this study examines the nature of interactions
and relationships between volunteer tourists
from Western countries and their hosts in
Thailand, using a qualitative approach.
Volunteer tourists and hosts are not
homogeneous groups of people. They are
diverse and likely to have different perceptions.
With the use of qualitative research, rich, in-
depth, holistic insights on the nature of
interactions and relationship between volunteer
tourists and their hosts can be obtained.
Social exchange theory, proposed by Ap
(1992), was used as a framework because it
helps to understand the process, causes and
consequences of the interactions and
relationships between volunteer tourists and
hosts throughout their interactions. SET has
been widely used in tourism studies, especially
in the study of attitudes of local residents on
tourists and tourism development and their
supports for tourism (e.g. Andereck &
Nyaupane, 2011; Gursoy, Chi, & Dyer, 2010;
Lee, Kang, Long, & Reisinger, 2010; Nunkoo &
Gursoy, 2012; Nunkoon & Ramkissoon, 2012;
Ward & Berno, 2011). It is argued to have
made a significant theoretical contribution to
the field of local residents’ attitudes to tourism
(Fredline & Faulkner, 2000). However,
Sharpley (2014) questions the use of SET in
the study of only one party in the exchange,
and its contribution to an understanding of local
residents’ attitudes. He argues that this theory
is more appropriate for the analysis of the
voluntary exchanges processed between two
groups of people, rather than, focussing on
only one party. Upon agreeing with this
argument, this study utilises SET as a base in
understanding the nature of interactions and
relationships between volunteer tourists and
their hosts.
Literature review
Definitions and main aspects of volunteer
tourism
Volunteer tourism is a relatively new form of
tourism (Wearing, 2001; Tomazos & Butler,
2009) and a number of definitions have been
proposed. Examples of well-known definitions
widely cited in existing literature include
Wearing (2001:1), who refers to volunteer
tourism as:
“[T]hose tourists who, for various reasons,
volunteer in an organised way to undertake
holidays that might involve aiding or alleviating
the material poverty of some groups in society,
the restoration of certain environments or
research into aspects of society or the
environment.”
VolunTourism (2011), a website dedicated to
providing resources relating to volunteer
tourism, defines it as:
“The conscious, seamlessly integrated
combination of voluntary service to a
destination, along with the best, traditional
elements of travel--- arts, culture, geography,
history and recreation--- in that destination.”
Kontogeorgopoulos (2016: 1) describe
volunteer tourism as “a form of travel that
combines traditional leisure pursuits with
opportunities to volunteer in an organised
fashion.” From these definitions of volunteer
tourism, it can be seen that although volunteer
tourism has been defined differently, there are
two common aspects. Firstly, volunteer tourists
spend part of the holiday doing volunteer
activities at the destination; and secondly,
volunteer tourism involves goodwill practice or
altruistic motivations to benefit other people.
A review of existing literature suggests five
main aspects of volunteer tourism: (i) it
includes volunteering and travelling
components; (ii) the volunteer tourists are
motivated by goodwill or altruism; (iii) it aims to
provide reciprocal benefits; (iv) it aims to
promote cross-cultural exchange; and (v) it is
generally undertaken by Westerners in
developing countries. These five aspects are
discussed in turn.
(i) Volunteering and travelling
It can be argued that volunteer tourism is a
tourism activity or “holiday” because this form
of tourism involves the temporary and willing
movement of individuals from their usual place
of work or residence to other destinations

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
181
during their free time. However, volunteer
tourism differs from other types of tourism in
that it involves participating in various voluntary
activities at the destination. More importantly,
the tourists have to pay for the privilege of
volunteering (Wearing, 2001). Volunteer
tourists often pay more for their volunteer
vacations than for a “normal” vacation at the
same destination (Wearing, 2001). Such
expenses normally cover the costs of
accommodation, meals, and the maintenance
costs of the project in the relevant
communities. Additionally, in some cases, they
also include a donation to the cause or project
(TRAM, 2008).
(ii) Goodwill or altruism
The acts of the volunteer tourists are often
believed to be motivated by goodwill or
altruism, which potentially benefit other people
(Broad, 2003; Callanan& Thomas, 2005; Gray&
Campbell, 2007; McGehee& Santos, 2005;
Wearing, 2001). Altruism is one of the major
factors motivating travellers to participate in
volunteer tourism (Brown, 2005; Chen & Chen,
2011; Lo & Lee, 2011; Proyrungroj, 2013;
Wearing, 2001). An analytical review of the
literature on volunteer tourists’ motivations
found that altruism is illustrated in many ways,
and takes a variety of forms. Phrases such as
“giving back” (Brown, 2005), “making a
difference” (Brown, 2005; Lo & Lee, 2011),
“saving the world” (Wearing, 2001), “doing
good” (Wearing, 2001), “showing love and
care” (Lo & Lee, 2011), “helping others”
(Carter, 2008; Chen & Chen, 2011; van der
Meer, 2007; Wearing, 2001), “contributing”
(Sin, 2009), and “doing something meaningful”
(Lo & Lee, 2011) are used to describe altruistic
motivation.
In terms of the actions volunteer tourists use to
express altruistic motivation, these take a
number of forms, such as providing financial
and material support to the needy, giving up
their time, and using their skills and knowledge
for the well-being of local residents (e.g.
teaching health knowledge to students in a
local school, and encouraging people in difficult
situations) (Lo & Lee, 2011; Proyrungroj, 2013).
(iii) Reciprocal benefits
Volunteer tourism is arguably a mutually
beneficial form of travel (Broad, 2003; Brown &
Morrison, 2003; Lepp, 2009; Ooi& Laing, 2010;
McGehee& Santos, 2005; McIntosh & Zahra,
2007; Raymond & Hall, 2008; Sin, 2009;
Wearing, 2001). The potential benefits that
local residents in host communities can gain
from volunteer tourism can be categorised into
three main areas: economic-related, social-
related, and environment-related benefits.
The economic-related benefits include
increased manpower, direct financial support
through volunteering placements, local
employment, and supplementary revenue
(Morgan, 2010). In terms of social-related
benefits, volunteer tourism not only provides a
free workforce and funds to local communities
(Callanan& Thomas, 2005; McIntosh & Zahra,
2007; Stoddart& Rogerson, 2004; Wearing,
2001), but can also provide a viable means of
education for locals (Sin, 2010). As for
environmental benefits, volunteer tourism that
takes place in rural destinations can help with
environmental restoration and conservation
(Broad, 2003; Wearing, 2001).
For the volunteer tourists, the notions of self-
development and transformative experiences
are often mentioned in existing literature (e.g.
Broad, 2003; Harlow &Pomfret, 2007; Jones,
2005; Knollenberg, McGehee, Bynum Boley, &
Clemmons, 2014; Lo& Lee, 2011; McGehee&
Santos, 2005; McIntosh & Zahra, 2007; Zahra
& McIntosh, 2007). For example, Broad (2003),
Harlow &Pomfret (2007), Jones (2005) and Lo
& Lee (2011) all argue that the volunteer
tourism experience facilitates the volunteer
tourists to develop their abilities and skills in
multiple ways, such as improving their
confidence, enhancing their ability to work with
others, gaining problem-solving skills and
developing their communication skills.
(iv) Cross-cultural exchange
According to existing literature, volunteer
tourism enables direct interaction and
exchange between volunteer tourists and host
communities (Broad, 2003; Brown, 2005;
Jones, 2005; McIntosh & Zahra, 2007; Zahra &
McIntosh, 2007). Brown (2005: 488) notes that:

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
182
“volunteer experiences enable travellers to
experience and learn beyond the typical
tourism platform, where one is surrounded by
staged settings typified by beautiful beaches
and fancy resorts, to see the people as they
really are, their lives and their living
environment.”
This is because volunteer tourists live and work
in the host community, which consequently
allows them to directly observe and interact
with local people (Broad, 2003).
(v) Undertaken by Westerners in developing
countries
Volunteer tourism is often perceived as a
practice of people from Western nations
travelling to provide assistance to people in
developing countries (Palacios, 2010; Richter &
Norman, 2010; Scheyvens, 2002; Simpson,
2005; Sin, 2009). This practice is underpinned
by the notion that the notion that the world is
divided into a rich, developed “North” and a
poor, developing “South”. People in the “North”
or Western nations were born more fortunate
and ought to share their privileges by assisting
people in the “South” or Eastern nations who
are less fortunate.
Host-guest interactions and relationships
Tourism is a social phenomenon consisting of
interactions and relationships between and
among individuals, various stakeholder groups
and organisations, especially between tourists
and local residents (McGehee &Andereck,
2009; Sharpley, 2014). To support this,
Bimonte & Punzo (2016: 129) states that
“tourism involves a meeting of two populations:
a better known, stable population (residents)
and a generally ex-ante less known and
variable one (tourists)”, each of which has their
own preference and expectations with regards
to the benefits and costs deriving from tourism.
The interactions and relationships that occur
between local residents and tourists are often
referred to as “host-guest interactions and
relationships” or “host-guest encounters”, in
which local residents serve as host, and
tourists are guests. Such interactions and
relationships are argued to be fundamental to
tourism (Smith (1977).
Sharpley (2008) points out that interactions and
relationships occurring between local residents
and tourists may influence the attitudes,
expectations, opinions and, ultimately, lifestyles
of both parties. Bimonte & Punzo (2011) and
Sharpley (2014) similarly state that the quality
and nature of the interactions and relationships
between these two groups affects local
residents’ perceptions of tourism and tourists’
willingness to pay and their experiences. A
number of scholars (e.g. Bimonte, 2008;
Bimonte & Punzo, 2016; Getz & Timur, 2005;
Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004) argue that only
mutual benefits between local residents and
tourists can prevent conflicts between them
based on the effects of competition and the
over use of resources.
Pearce (1994) states that the contexts within
which such interactions and relationships occur
vary, depending on a number of factors such
as the stage, scale, and type of tourism
development, the expectation and behaviour of
tourists, and the structure and characteristics of
the local community. Sharpley (2014)
conceptualises the nature of host-guest
interactions and relationships based on the
nature of contact between these two parties
and subsequent influences on host perceptions
by developing a continuum of tourist-host
encounters. At one end of the continuum
stands the so-called “intentional encounters
between tourists and hosts based on
commercial exchange” where tourists and
hosts engage in frequent, planned, mutually
beneficial exchanges, therefore, such
encounters tend to have a direct effect on
tourist experiences and the hosts’ perceptions.
Conversely, at the other end of the continuum
is the encounter between tourists and hosts
who do not have direct contact with each other,
therefore, the encounter between them does
not have an influence on the experience of the
tourists, but possibly has an influence on the
hosts' perceptions. In the middle between these
two ends are intentional encounters for
personal exchange and
unintentional/spontaneous encounters. The
former refers to the context in which tourists
and hosts have occasional, planned, mutually
beneficial contacts, whereas the latter refers to
a context in which tourists and hosts engage in
infrequent, unplanned, and uncertain beneficial

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
183
contact. However, both forms of encounters
have some degree of influence on tourist
experiences and hosts’ perceptions.
Apart from the nature of host-guest interactions
and relationships, the status of hosts (local
residents) and guests (tourists) is another
concept used to describe and analyse the
interactions and relationships between these
two parties. Van den Berghe & Keyes (1984)
argue that local residents and tourists are
unequal in terms of local information and
wealth. In terms of local information and
knowledge, locals are in a superior status
because they are more familiar with the local
information and knowledge. Thus tourists are
vulnerable and likely to be cheated. However,
in terms of wealth, tourists usually have better
status as they come from developed and
wealthy nations, whereas the locals live in
developing and poor countries. Moreover, Van
den Berghe & Keyes (1984) also add that the
inequality between local residents and tourist
also comes from the fact that tourists are the
onlookers while the local residents are the
performers.
In line with this, Zhang, Xu, & Xing (2016)
explain the unequal status between local
residents and tourists by stating that tourists
are usually in an active position through
“gazing” and “photographing” the local
residents, while the local residents are often in
a passive position because they are those who
are gazed upon and photographed by the
tourists. In addition, the study of Zhang et
al.(2016) on host-guest interactions in ethnic
tourism argues that in a particular location such
as in minority or ethnic areas, the hosts appear
to have higher status and more power than
tourists through their control of the space and
their local knowledge. Moreover, this study also
suggests that in minority areas, due to the lack
of local knowledge, superiority of tourists’
economic position does not make them have
higher status or more power than the local
residents.
Social exchange theory (SET)
The analytical review of social exchange theory
(SET) presented in this section provides a
foundation for understanding the interactions
and relationships between volunteer tourists
and their hosts. SET is rooted in sociology and
anthropology (Cook & Rice, 2003) and has
been applied widely in a business context
(Coulson et al., 2014).
The theoretical core of SET is an assumption
that all relationships are exchanges which
involve give and take (Kaynak & Marandu,
2006). Specifically, SET is based on the
premise that social interaction is based on an
exchange of tangible and intangible rewards
and resources between people or groups of
people (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012;
Sharpley, 2014; Zafirovski, 2005), and the
comparison between relative costs and benefits
of such relationships (Ward & Berno, 2011). In
other words, SET is concerned with the
analysis of how the structure of costs and
benefits in a relationship affect the pattern of
interaction (Molm, 1991). According to SET,
individuals decide to engage in an exchange
process once they have anticipated and
compared the benefits which they may gain
from such an exchange with the costs that they
may incur (Bimonte & Punzo, 2016; Nunkook &
Ramkissoon, 2012). Generally, individuals
involved in an exchange process will enter into
relationships in which the benefits exceed the
costs (Nunkook & Ramkissoon, 2012) and try
to optimise the benefits while minimising the
costs implied by such exchange (Bimonte &
Punzo, 2016; Coulson et al, 2014).
Ap (1992: 668) conceptualised social exchange
theory as
“a general sociological theory concerned with
understanding the exchange of resources
between individuals and groups in an
interaction situation. Interactions are treated as
a process in which “actors” supply one another
with valued resources,” defining an actor as “a
person, a role-occupant, or a group that acts as
a single unit” and resources as “of a material,
social, or psychological nature”, which “become
the object of exchange.”
Sharpley (2008) suggests that in the context of
tourism, tourists and hosts go through a
process of negotiation, exchange or interaction
in which both aim to benefit from the encounter.
Cropanzano & Mitchell (2005: 876) argue that
“an exchange requires a bidirectional

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
184
transaction – something has to be given and
something returned”. For example, while
tourists may seek to benefit in a form of a
desired experience and hosts in the form of
economic gain, each party provides the other
with resources (e.g. tourists buy souvenirs,
local residents arrange cultural shows).
A number of researchers (e.g. Bachmann,
2001; Cook, Hardin, & Levi, 2005; Nunkoo &
Ramkissoon, 2012; Oberg & Svensson, 2010)
argue that central to SET are the concepts of
power and trust between the actors in an
exchange process. Or in other words, social
exchanges are based on a mixture of both
power and trust (Bachmann, 2001). Nunkoo &
Ramkissoon (2012) explain the notion of power
by using Foucault (1978)’s concept of modern
power and state that power in the context of
SET is not similar to the traditional perspective
on power where it refers to a situation where
one person or a group of persons gives orders
and the other obey (Stein & Harper, 2003), but
in the context of SET, power exists and is
manifested in all social relations. In line with
this, Ap (1992) points out the role of power in
social exchanges by stating that power is used
to achieve mutual benefits between the actors
involved in the exchange process and it also
determines the actors’ ability to take advantage
of the outcomes of the exchange.
Alongside the notion of power is trust. Several
scholars (e.g. Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005;
Molm, Takahashi & Peterson, 2000; Nunkoo &
Ramkissoon, 2012; Stein and Harper, 2003)
argue that trust between actors serves as a key
element in social exchanges. This is because
in social exchanges, the exchange of benefits
between actors is a voluntary action and is not
based on any obligations (Konovsky & Pugh,
1994). Therefore, whether social exchanges
will continue is based on trust between the
actors in an exchange process (Zafirovski,
2005).
Social exchange can be either reciprocal or a
negotiated exchange (Coulson et al, 2014).
Reciprocal exchange refers to an exchange in
which each party involved in an exchange
process performs beneficial acts for another
without the negotiation of terms and without
knowing whether or not, or even to what extent
others will reciprocate (Frémeaux & Michelson,
2011; Molm, Peterson, & Takahashi, 2003;
Molm et al., 2000). In contrast, negotiated
exchange is an exchange in which both parties
seek explicit agreement on the terms of

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
185
exchange (Molm et al., 2003) and thus each
party’s benefits and costs are of measured
value (Coulson et al, 2014).
When applied in the context of tourism, Ap
(1992) explains that social exchange consists
of four main components: (a) the identification
of need satisfaction; (b) exchange relation; (c)
consequences of exchange; and (d)
determination of the consequences. Between
these components are a set of processes that
link them together, including: (i) initiation of
exchange; (ii) exchange formation; and (iii)
exchange evaluation, as in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows that the interaction or social
exchange process between tourists and hosts
is initiated by the “identification of need
satisfaction” which serves as the rationale or
motivation for each party to engage in tourism
activities. These motivations play an important
role in influencing the attitudes and behaviour
of tourists and hosts during the interactions
(Fisher & Price, 1991; Proyrungroj, 2013).
Fisher & Price (1991) argue that two types of
motivations (a desire to learn something new
and a desire to interact with new people)
determine the positive results of host-guest
interactions. Identification of need satisfaction
is linked to the second component, the
“exchange relation”, by a process of initiating
an exchange.
According to Ap (1992), exchange relations
consist of two subcomponents: antecedents
and form of exchange relation, linked by a
process of exchange formation. The
antecedents refer to forms of opportunities
perceived by at least one of the actors before
the exchange occurs. The antecedents or
perceived opportunities normally occur in forms
of, initially, “rationality of behaviour”, when the
actors believe that they can gain potential
rewards or benefits from exchange; therefore,
tending to act in a rational manner that leads
them to obtain such benefits; “satisfying of
benefits”, in which actors attempt to gain a
satisfactory and acceptable level of benefits
from the exchange, since the ideal maximised
benefits may not always be possible;
“reciprocity”, a situation in which each actor
provide benefits that are important to one
another equitably; and “justice principle”, in
which the exchange must be perceived by both
parties as fair.
If either party perceives that the exchange will
be unrewarding, unsatisfactory or unfair,
withdrawal will occur and there will be no
exchange. Alternatively, if both parties feel the
exchange will provide fair, satisfactory and
reciprocal rewards, they continue to undergo
the process and the transfer of resources
between them occurs.
Exchange relations can be either balanced or
unbalanced, based on the relative power or
dependence of the actors (Ap, 1992; Crawford
& Novak, 2014). Power refers to the ability of
one actor to exert control over the outcome of
another’s experience, and arises from having
resources that are valued by another actor. The
resources might be money, knowledge,
experience, or whatever is sought by another
actor (Crawford & Novak, 2014). If both parties
perceive that they both gain from the exchange
and have similar levels of power, the exchange
relation is balanced. However, if one actor has
high levels of power compared to the other, the
exchange relation is unbalanced, placing the
former in an advantageous position. A
disadvantaged actor may develop negative
attitudes to the advantaged actor.
De Kadt (1979: 50) argues that the nature of
the interactions or exchanges between tourists
and their hosts can take one of three paths:
“where the tourist is purchasing some good or
service from the host, where the tourist and
host find themselves side by side, for example,
on a sandy beach … and where the two parties
come face to face with the object of exchanging
information or ideas.” In relation to social
exchange theory, the last situation described
shows a balanced exchange relation, in which
tourist and host interact on the basis of
equality, respect and mutual reward.
Several researchers (e.g. Ap, 1992; Mathieson
& Wall, 1982; Reisinger, 2012; Sutton, 1967)
argue that interactions and relationships
between tourists and members of the local
community or their hosts tend to be unequal
and unbalanced in nature. Reisinger (2012)
points out that since the interactions between
tourists and hosts are brief and temporary,

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
186
there is no opportunity to develop meaningful,
equal, and balanced interactions and
relationships. Moreover, tourists and hosts
have different social status, play different roles,
and have different motivations: tourists are at
leisure, whereas hosts are at work; tourists are
to be served, whereas hosts are the servers;
tourists are motivated by leisure, whereas
hosts are motivated by financial gain. Such
differences lead each party to develop different
attitudes and behaviours towards each other.
Above all, different abilities of tourists and
hosts in accessing information can lead their
interactions and relationships to be unequal
and unbalanced. Ap (1992: 667) furthers this
argument by stating that “not all asymmetric
resident-tourist exchanges favour the tourist.
There are occasions when tourists may be
taken advantage of due to their inadequate
knowledge.”
The study of Simpson (2004) on the volunteer
tourism experience of gap year students affirms
the above arguments. She argues that
volunteer tourism experiences emphasise the
great differences and inequality between the
volunteer tourists and the hosts, which in turn
reinforces the notion of “them” and “us”. This is
because the gap year-volunteer projects create
a “geography” of the world where there are
simplistic boundaries between
developed/northern/Western countries and
developing/southern/Eastern countries, and
this perception, in turn, legitimises young
unskilled people from developed countries
coming to help people in developing countries.
Simpson (2004) also points out that volunteer
tourism experiences do not enable the young
volunteer tourists to truly understand the nature
and causes of poverty in the host country: they
simply use the poverty as a means to
distinguish the developed world from the
developing world and adopt the idea of “luck” or
“lotto logic” to explain the differences and
inequality they encounter.
In line with Simpson (2004), Sin (2009) argues
that volunteer tourism and a giving attitude in
the volunteer tourists cannot help aid-recipients
to share the privilege enjoyed by volunteer
tourists; on the contrary, it mirrors the
dichotomy between the superior status of
Western volunteer tourists and the inferior
status of aid-recipients in host countries, and
reinforces the dominant position of Western
nations.
Heuman (2005) point out that the exchanges
between hosts and guests in the context of
volunteer tourism (referred to in this study as
“working holidays”) appear to be in the form of
“traditional hospitality” rather than “commercial
hospitality”: the latter is commonly found in
mass tourism. According to Heuman (2005),
traditional hospitality differs from commercial
hospitality in that in the former, the main
features of host-guest relationship (protection
provided by hosts to tourists, non-monetary
reciprocity, compliance of the tourists with
locals’ expectations, and a performance of
deference) are all found, whereas these
elements do not feature in the latter. In
commercial hospitality, interactions and
relationship between hosts and tourists are
usually based on financial exchange, so that
the relationships between tourists and hosts
are less likely to develop social and personal
ties. Agreeing with this, Uriely & Reichel (2000)
argue that volunteer tourism can serve as a
platform where “social exchange” relations
between hosts and guests – in which social
and personal ties receive more emphasis– can
be better developed.
Once the exchange process is completed, or at
the end of the holiday, both tourists and the
hosts evaluate the exchange of resources. The
consequences of the exchange evaluation can
take the form of a sequence: examining outputs
from the exchange; determining the action to
respond to another party based on the outputs;
and evaluating the psychological outcomes of
(feelings about) the consequences. The
combination of outputs, actions, and
psychological outcomes as consequences of
the exchange evaluation forms the attitudes of
tourists and hosts towards one another (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 1980) and determine the likeliness
of future exchange.
The outputs are the perceived benefits that the
actors have gained from the exchange. For
example, if the evaluation of the exchange is
positive, the outputs for the tourists can be
gaining new experiences or having learnt about

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
187
local culture; and for the hosts, they can be in
the form of income or employment.
For actions, the tourists may recommend that
their friends visit the community, and the hosts
may extend friendliness, courtesy, and
hospitality to tourists (Proyrungroj, 2015), or
adapt themselves to some inconveniences
caused by tourism, such as long queues for
purchasing goods and services, sharing local
facilities with tourists, overcrowding, noise, and
traffic congestion (Teye, Sönmez, & Sirakaya,
2002).
As far as outcomes are concerned, positive or
negative feelings held by either group towards
the other are good examples of outcomes. The
study of Proyrungroj (2013) found that at the
end of the holiday, volunteer tourists had mixed
feeling toward their hosts as a result of their
interactions: they were very impressed by the
hosts’ friendliness, helpfulness, and dedication
to looking after the orphan children, and at the
same time, they were frustrated because
sometimes the hosts did not assign them work,
which made them feel underutilised, useless
and unneeded.
As for the hosts’ feelings towards the tourists
as the result of the interaction, in the field of
volunteer tourism, there several relevant
studies. For example, Proyrungroj (2015)
reports that hosts expressed a variety of
positive feelings towards the volunteer tourists,
which included: being impressed (e.g. by the
volunteer tourists’ conduct, performance and
the benefits they had provided); being grateful
(for the volunteer tourists’ generosity, efforts,
and dedication); and being proud (of their own
culture when the volunteer tourists showed an
interest in it). Sin (2010) reports that hosts had
positive feeling towards volunteer tourists
because they were aware of the good
intentions of the volunteer tourists and saw
their acts as beneficial. Guiney (2012) reports
that the staff of the orphanage where volunteer
tourism took place had positive feelings
towards the volunteer tourists, because they
see the volunteer tourists as a vital source of
income for the orphanages. Negative feelings
of hosts towards volunteer tourists were also
found in the existing literature. For example, Lo
& Lee (2011) reveal that the hosts felt inferior
and frustrated when they interacted with
volunteer tourists from wealthier countries
The combination of the evaluation of outputs,
actions and outcome leads to decisions by both
parties about their future exchange; if the
exchange is positive, they are likely to engage
in future exchange; but if negative, the
possibility of future exchange is very low.
Methodology
This study used an interpretive paradigm and
qualitative research methods because its
primary aim was to gain a rich, in-depth, holistic
understanding of the interactions and
relationship between volunteer tourists from
Western countries and their hosts in Thailand.
The rationale for employing this approach is
justified in terms of ontology, epistemology and
methodology.
Ontologically, this research posits that the
interactions and relationship between volunteer
tourists and hosts are socially constructed and
based on routine interrelations and interactions
between volunteer tourists, hosts and the
environments in a specific context. Therefore,
interpretation of this phenomenon naturally
varies across time and place (Jennings, 2001)
and depends on the individuals who interpret it
(Denzin, 1989). Further, this study holds that
volunteer tourists and hosts are not homoge-
nous groups of people: their interpretations are
diverse. This ontological assumption is in
accordance with the interpretive paradigm.
In terms of epistemology, the interpretive
paradigm emphasises a close relationship,
social interaction, and working partnership
between researchers and researched, which is
believed to be fundamental for meaning and
knowledge production (Goodson & Phillimore,
2004; O’Donoghue, 2007). Therefore,
researchers are encouraged to immerse
themselves in the social setting of interest so
that an insider’s view can be achieved
(Jennings, 2001).In this study, the researcher
adopted the case study approach, utilising a
combination of qualitative research methods as
a means of entering and becoming an actor in
the volunteer tourism phenomenon at the study
site. This approach proved very effective and
enabled the researcher to work closely with the

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
188
respondents in the production of knowledge for
this study.
In keeping with the interpretive paradigm, this
study was informed by a qualitative method-
logical approach, because the interactions and
relationships between volunteer tourists and
hosts are complex and dynamic in nature, and
thus cannot be conveyed and presented in a
numerical or statistical form. It is believed that
the statistical nature of quantitative research
cannot capture the multiple realities of
interactions and relationships between
volunteer tourists and hosts, and qualitative
methods can lead the researcher to better
understand how these two groups interpret
their interactions and relationships. Therefore,
this study adopted a case study approach
using semi-structured interviews and
participant observation.
This study employed a case study approach,
using the volunteer tourism programme offered
by the Special Education Centre of Ranong
Province in Muang district, Ranong province,
Thailand as the case. It is a government
organisation established in 2000 to provide
residential education and care for children with
disabilities. The children include those with
mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism,
mobility and physical impairments, intelligence
or memory impairment, and aural impairment.
The centre began to offer the volunteer tourism
programme in 2011. All the volunteer tourists
applied for the program through Andaman
Discoveries, a non-profit organisation based in
Thailand. Over 90% of the volunteer tourists
are from the UK and Spain; the rest are from
other Western countries including the
Netherlands, France, and Australia.
Opportunities for volunteer tourism are
available all year round. Generally volunteer
tourists spend around one to four weeks and
are required to work five days a week. Their
main duty is to educate and take care of the
children at the centre.
In terms of qualifications, the Special Education
Centre does not require specific qualifications
for recruiting volunteer tourists in terms of
knowledge, skills or experiences. Instead, it
prefers characteristic such as being open-
minded, proactive, patient, mature, flexible and
respectful of different cultures. The volunteer
tourists were asked to write a motivation letter,
submitted with the application form.
This study collected data from two groups of
respondents: volunteer tourists on working
vacations at the Special Education Centre of
Ranong Province, and the staff of the centre
who served as hosts. Host respondents were
limited to only the staff of the centre is
because, apart from the staff members of the
centre, there were only a few locals who had
contact with the volunteer tourists or had an
opinion about them. This limitation was
identified during the pilot study when the
researcher tried to interview other groups of
local residents, but found that they did not have
rich information about the volunteer tourists to
share. Generally, they said that they liked to
have these people in their community, but that
was all. The staff of the centre were found to be
the only group of local people in regular contact
with volunteer tourists.
Both groups of respondents were selected
using purposive sampling. The main reason for
this was that the Special Education Centre of
Ranong Province is a specific, enclosed site
where all the volunteer tourists and staff work,
and therefore all of them had direct experience
that yielded valuable insights for the research.
The criteria for selecting volunteer tourists were
that subjects must be: (i) tourists from Western
countries who spend part of their holiday
volunteering at the Special Education Centre of
Ranong Province for at least one week; (ii)
aged eighteen years or older for ethical
reasons; and (iii) able to communicate in
English for the convenience of data collecting.
As for the host respondents, the criteria for
selection were that subjects must be: (i) Thai
citizens; (ii) aged eighteen years or older for
ethical reasons; (iii) must work at the Special
Education Centre and have roles and activities
that involve them with the volunteer tourists. As
a result, 14 volunteer tourists and 19 staff
members of the centre were selected. This
number was defined by the saturation point of
the data; that is, when new categories or
themes stopped emerging from the data.

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
189
Table 1. Profile of the volunteer tourists
Name
Gender
Age
Marital
status
Education
Country of
Origin
Occupation
V1
Male
18
Single
A-levels
UK
Student
V2
Female
18
Single
A-levels
UK
Student
V3
Male
22
Single
A-levels
Netherlands
Recent university student
V4
Male
19
Single
A-levels
UK
Student
V5
Female
18
Single
A-levels
UK
Student
V6
Female
21
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
Spain
Recent graduate
V7
Female
19
Single
A-levels
UK
Student
V8
Female
32
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
UK
Teacher
V9
Male
23
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
Spain
Recent graduate
V10
Female
41
Married
Bachelor’s Degree
Spain
Physiotherapist
V11
Female
22
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
Australia
Recent graduate
V12
Female
27
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
Spain
Engineer
V13
Female
18
Single
A-levels
UK
Student
V14
Female
18
Single
A-levels
UK
Student
Table 2. Profile of the staff members of the centre
Name
Gender
Age
Marital
status
Education
H1
Female
37
Married
Master’s Degree
H2
Female
42
Married
Bachelor’s Degree
H3
Female
23
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H4
Female
52
Married
Bachelor’s Degree
H5
Female
38
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H6
Female
32
Divorced
Bachelor’s Degree
H7
Male
50
Married
Bachelor’s Degree
H8
Female
50
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H9
Female
25
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H10
Female
26
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H11
Female
28
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H12
Male
31
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H13
Female
32
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H14
Female
31
Married
Bachelor’s Degree
H15
Male
25
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H16
Male
23
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H17
Female
24
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H18
Female
24
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
H19
Female
26
Single
Bachelor’s Degree
Tables 1 and 2 show the profile of the
respondents.
The study was conducted between January
and March 2013. Data were collected using
semi-structured interviews and participant
observation. These two techniques were used
for the benefit of triangulation. The rationale for
choosing semi-structured interviews lies in their
potential to enable a researcher to gather “rich”
data because it allows a researcher to clarify
and probe the topics being investigated
(Bebbie, 1990). If the answers of the
respondents are unclear or too brief, this
technique enables a researcher to ask for
clarification, by giving an example or simply
requesting more detail (Carey, 2013).
Moreover, this type of interview corresponds to
the interpretive paradigm, which is the
framework of this study. All 33 respondents
were interviewed individually. Interviews were
conducted in English with the volunteer tourists
and in Thai with the hosts. Before starting the
interview, the process of ensuring ethical
practice was introduced. All the respondents
were provided with a research information

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
190
sheet that explained the details of the research
and their rights. Moreover, they were asked to
fill in and sign a consent form giving their
permission to video-record the interviews and
the use of their words with pseudonyms in
publications.
As for the participant observation, this study
used the technique “participant as observer” as
categorised by Junker (1960), in which the
respondents were aware of the researcher’s
identity and role. In this study, the researcher
observed the behaviour of, and activities
performed by, the respondents. Moreover, she
had informal conversation with them. The
rationale for utilising this technique lie in its
strengths in allowing a researcher to gain data
on what actually and normally happens in the
social setting being studied (Carey, 2013). This
technique also enables the researcher to be
aware of the hidden aspects of events being
researched (Denscombe, 2007). In addition,
the researcher also believed that participant
observation could enable her to become
immersed in the social setting, thereby
providing an opportunity to observe how the
respondents construct and interpret meanings
and knowledge of the issues being studied
(Jennings, 2001). The activities and behaviour
of the respondents, as well as informal
conversations with them, were observed and
recorded in the fieldnotes, which were
organised chronologically.
Data analysis was conducted during and after
data collection. Although software qualitative
data packages like Nvivo are available, the
researcher chose to analyse the data manually
because this allowed her to immerse herself in
the data. Before starting data analysis, the
interviews were transcribed by the researcher.
Although this was time-consuming, it was
worthwhile because the researcher became
very familiar with the data. The data gathered
from semi-structured interviews and participant
observation were cross-checked. This study
not only sought convergence, but also
differences or contradictions that occurred
within the data. The data analysis process
followed six phases of thematic analysis, as
introduced by Braun & Clarke (2006): (i)
becoming familiar with the data; (ii) generating
initial codes; (iii) searching for themes; (iv)
reviewing themes; (v) defining and naming
themes; and (vi) producing the report. Key
themes were established according to the
interpretation of meaning attached to the data
in relation to the research questions.
The reason for using thematic analysis lies in
its accessibility and flexibility. As suggested by
Braun & Clarke (2006), thematic analysis is an
accessible and flexible method because it is
not attached to any particular theoretical or
epistemological approach; thus it can be
applied across different theoretical frameworks.
Discussion of findings
By using the model of social exchange theory
proposed by Ap (1992) to examine interactions
and relationships between volunteer tourists
and hosts, the data analysis reveals that both
volunteer tourists and the hosts initially decided
to get involved in the volunteer tourism
program at the Special Education Centre
because they expected to benefit from
volunteer tourism.
For the volunteer tourists, three major
motivations/expectations were identified: a
desire to help children less fortunate than them;
a desire to gain experiences in teaching and
taking care of children with disabilities; and a
desire to learn about Thai culture, as described
below:
“These kids are very poor. I always want to
help them. I feel lucky and at the same time I
also feel that I am selfish, being born as a
privileged person…it would be really selfish to
not go and to give some love and some help to
the children who are less fortunate…I really
want to help them, at least to make them
happy”. (V2)
“I decided to work here because I want to work
with children with disabilities, I want to help
them get better. So for me volunteering here
helped me to see how good I am at teaching
and taking care of these children. I also want to
see how my contribution affects them, so see
how I can improve.” (V7)
“It is mostly just to help ease myself into Thai
culture. I always want to be immersed into the
culture of the community I visit. I want to learn
and experience how people live. I believe that

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
191
working here helps me absorb myself in
everything Thai.” (V9)
As for the hosts, they mentioned that there
were not enough staff at the centre to support
the large number of children, and therefore
they needed assistance from the volunteer
tourists to relieve them from routine work such
as taking children to toilets, taking care of
children during lunchtime, and playing with
children. With volunteer tourists relieving them
from such responsibilities, they had more time
for other tasks. Many hosts also mentioned that
they wanted to learn English from the volunteer
tourists. Moreover, the hosts also wanted to
learn from people who have knowledge such
as how to provide physical or musical therapy.
For example, H4 said,
“We don’t have a physiotherapist here because
we don’t have budget to hire one. So I think if
we can have volunteers who are
physiotherapists, we can learn a lot from
them…We used to have one volunteer from
Spain who is a physiotherapist and she taught
us a lot. Now some of us can provide
physiotherapy to the children.”
The identification of needs satisfaction of the
volunteer tourists and the hosts supports the
argument made by Ap (1992: 671) that,
“Unless a need exists, there is no rationale,
motivation, or basis upon which the actor can
develop a willingness to initiate exchange with
another party.”
When the volunteer tourists arrived at the
centre and engaged in volunteer tourism
programme, they interacted with their hosts. It
is evident from the data that both volunteer
tourists and hosts interacted in a rational
manner, or in a manner they believed could
lead them to fulfil their needs/expectations. For
example, those tourists with a desire to gain
experience in teaching and taking care of
children with disabilities tended to work hard,
preparing for lessons, using their skills and
knowledge and trying different techniques in
teaching and providing care to the children to
ensure that their needs were satisfied.
For the hosts, it was found that they also acted
in a rational manner to fulfil their
needs/expectations, by assigning specific tasks
to the volunteer tourists that they believed
would benefit them and the children. For
example, if the volunteer tourists had specific
skills or knowledge (e.g. of physiotherapy or a
particular musical instrument), these tourists
would be asked to use their knowledge and
skills to provide care or teach the children
under the observation of the staff, so that the
hosts could learn these skills as well.
It is evident that the behaviour of each group
and the interactions between them brought
about benefits that were perceived to be
satisfactory, acceptable, and reciprocal to both
groups. Neither acted only for the purpose of
satisfying their own needs/expectations, but to
benefit one another. In other words, they did
not just seek to “take”, but also intended to
“give.” This may be part of the unique nature of
volunteer tourism, which aims to provide
mutual benefit for both tourists and hosts.
The reciprocal exchanges or interactions
between the volunteer tourists and the hosts
found in this study support the argument that
volunteer tourism provides reciprocal benefits
for both volunteer tourists and host
communities made by several researchers (e.g.
Broad, 2003; Brown & Morrison, 2003; Lepp,
2009; McGehee & Santos, 2005; McIntosh &
Zahra, 2007; Ooi & Laing, 2010; Raymond &
Hall, 2008; Sin, 2009; Wearing, 2001). Based
on the satisfactory, reciprocal interactions
between volunteer tourists and hosts as
discussed above, it can be argued that their
interaction was a balanced exchange. This is
because each party had resources valued by
the other, and these resources were shared in
an equal and fair manner: for example, the
volunteer tourists had knowledge of English
and skills in taking care of children with special
needs, which they shared with the hosts; and
the hosts had an environment where the
volunteer tourists gained the benefits they
sought.
Although both volunteer tourists and hosts
perceived inequality between them in terms of
their socio-economic background, this
perception did not cause unbalanced
interactions between them. On the contrary,
both felt that they could benefit from this

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
192
inequality. Volunteer tourists claimed that being
first-hand witnesses of the differences between
their own lives and the lives of the children at
the centre made them aware of things that they
had never realised before, transforming some
of their values and perceptions. They had not
only taught the children, but learnt a lot from
them. The most frequently cited things they had
learnt were appreciation of things they already
had, and the minimal importance of material
needs. As V13 said:
“The lives of the kids here made me realise that
you can live simply and be so happy over this
simple thing… It is so materialistic at home and
the kids there have so much and yet they have
no appreciation of it…I noticed that yesterday
when the kids were getting their presents, that
was amazing. They looked so happy even they
didn’t know how they could use those things.”
As for the hosts, they benefitted from such
inequality by learning from the skills and
knowledge of the volunteer tourists. This point
was clearly stated by H3:
“They [the volunteer tourists] came from
developed countries, which is good for us here
and the kids because they know a lot of things
better than us. They know how to teach and
provide care for these kids better than us. I
think in their countries, there are modern and
more efficient ways and techniques to help
these kids in terms of the development, which
they can share with us.”
The data also suggested that the volunteer
tourists felt that they were not mere visitors, but
rather guests of the centre. This made them
feel warm, as if they were at their own home.
The point is mention by every volunteer tourist,
who similarly stated that all of the staff were
very friendly and treated them as if they were
family.
V14 said that she believed that the staff of the
centre viewed her and other volunteer tourists
as different to other tourists. She compared her
previous leisure tourism experience in Thailand
when she visited famous tourist attractions with
her volunteer tourism experience at the centre,
saying that the way Thai people treated her
when she was a leisure tourist was totally
different to the way the staff treated her. When
she was a leisure tourist, Thai people saw her
as source of money and treated her as “a
customer”, whereas at the centre, she was
treated as “a guest”.
As for the hosts, they thought that volunteer
tourists were different from other tourists
because they came to help. With this
realisation, they felt gratitude to the volunteer
tourists and wanted to return the generosity
and good intentions of the volunteer tourists.
Many hosts said that they had, for example,
taken volunteer tourists to markets and nearby
tourist attractions during the weekends and
teaching Thai language to them.
Signs of caring for the safety and security of
the volunteer tourists were also detected from
the hosts. Many hosts said that they were
worried that the volunteer tourists might have
problems with the unfamiliar food and climate
of Thailand; therefore, they made sure that the
accommodation the volunteer tourists were
equipped with enough fans and clean food was
prepared for the volunteer tourists.
No sign of conflict between the volunteer
tourists and the hosts were found. The data
from participant observation showed that the
hosts set very clear rules about working, and
explained these rules to the volunteer tourists
during the orientation. The hosts were also
eager to explain about local culture (e.g. how to
dress when visiting the temple, how to greet
each other, how to speak Thai language etc.)
to the volunteer tourists. Most of the volunteer
tourists showed that they were ready to follow
the rules and respect local culture. However, it
was found that there were a couple of female
volunteer tourists who dressed in a way that
showed too much skin, which is considered
inappropriate in Thai culture. Although some
hosts mentioned their concern, they thought
that this was a minor issue. They understood
that the volunteer tourists did not have bad
intentions, but simply dress according to their
own culture, which has more liberal norms
about how much skin is shown; moreover,
Thailand is a hot country, so volunteer tourists
who came from colder countries wore very light
clothes that might show a lot of skin.

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
193
In summary, the consequences of the
interactions between tourists and hosts in this
study were found to be positive. Based on
social exchange theory, this can be explained
using the form of a sequence: examining
outputs from the interactions; determining the
action to respond to another party based on the
outputs; and evaluating the psychological
outcomes (feelings about) of the
consequences.
The outputs were in the forms of benefits that
each party had gained: the volunteer tourists
gained a desired experience, which included
the opportunity to exercise their altruistic
motivation by helping less fortunate children,
having experiences in taking care of children
with special needs; learning about Thai culture;
and learning from the lives of the children (e.g.
appreciation of things they already had, and the
minimal importance of material needs). For the
hosts, the benefits that they had gained include
having learnt knowledge and skills from the
volunteer tourists in terms of taking care of the
children with special needs, having an
opportunity to learn/improve English skills, and
relief from routine duties and responsibilities.
In terms of action, the data showed that many
volunteer tourists provided on-going support to
the centre, and many of them recommended
that their friends participate in volunteer tourism
at the centre; for the hosts, examples include
extending hospitality to the volunteer tourists
and giving them souvenirs and certificates.
As for the psychological outcomes, it was found
that both parties were greatly satisfied. The
data showed that these positive feelings were
primarily based on the characteristics and
behaviour of both parties. For example, the
volunteer tourists were impressed by the
behaviour of the children and the dedication
and performance of the staff in taking care of
the children, as reflected in V9’s statement that,
“Seeing the development of these kids, they
are so far in advance. They [the staff members]
are doing a great job with engaging the kids…
They have been so dedicated.” The hosts were
impressed by and grateful for the generosity
and dedication of the volunteer tourists.
Moreover, it is also evident that both parties
shared an interest in the well-being and
development of the children, which caused
them to have positive feelings and attitudes
towards each other.
Furthermore, although it was found that the
volunteer tourists had some negative feelings,
these were not related to the hosts, but rather a
more general sense that their contribution
would not be as beneficial as they expected, as
stated by V10:
“I just felt like the kids don’t really need us
here...I think there will be other centres, maybe
bigger ones, where volunteers will be more
needed…It feels like we are coming in,
intruding a little bit on their space kind of thing.”
Another factor that caused negative feelings in
volunteer tourists was breaking the bond they
had established with the children and the staff
at the centre; this feeling inevitably occurs
when two parties have spent time together. The
sadness of the volunteer tourists was not as a
result of any inappropriate behaviour on the
part of the hosts, but caused by their own
sensitivity.
These outputs, action, and outcomes
determined the future involvement in volunteer
tourism of both groups. Many volunteer tourists
mentioned that they intended to volunteer at
the centre again, and all of the hosts were
willing to welcome volunteer tourists to their
centre again. To conclude, the interactions in
this study were reciprocal and rewarding, which
benefitted both groups and was sufficient for
them to decide to be involved in volunteer
tourism in the future.
Conclusion and implication
The findings of this study contribute to the
literature on volunteer tourism, especially in
terms of the nature of interactions and
relationship of the volunteer tourists and the
hosts. The finding of this study agree with
Fisher & Price (1991), who point out that a
desire to learn and a desire to interact with new
people are the two major motivations that lead
to positive results of the tourist-host
encounters. In this study, these two motivations
were found to be the primary motivations of
both volunteer tourists and hosts to engage in
volunteer tourism. It could be argued that these

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
194
two motivations represent major characteristics
of actors in volunteer tourism, because in
volunteer tourism, cross-cultural exchanges
and engaging relationships could be easily
facilitated. A desire to learn and a desire to
interact with new people were found to direct
volunteer tourists and hosts to behave in a way
that enabled them to gain benefits from one
another, which consequently led them to have
positive feelings about the experience as a
whole.
The main conclusion of this study is that the
exchanges or interactions between volunteer
tourists and hosts tend to be equal and
balanced, and both parties can enjoy mutual
benefits. This finding challenges the idea that
exchanges or interactions between tourists and
hosts tend to be unequal and unbalanced, in
which one party benefits more than the other,
as argued by Ap (1992), Mathieson & Wall
(1982), Reisinger (2012) and Sutton (1967).
Perhaps an altruistic motivation or a desire to
help the children on the part of the volunteer
tourists, and the perception of the hosts that
volunteer tourists were different from traditional
tourists could best explain this situation. For the
volunteer tourists, although they took care of
and taught the children with the purpose of
fulfilling their own desire, these behaviours
evidently benefited the children and the hosts.
For the hosts, they not only sought to benefit
from the volunteer tourist, but also regarded
them as “a member of their family” or “friends”,
and were willing to share knowledge of taking
care of the children and their native culture with
them.
Moreover, this study argues that both volunteer
tourists and the hosts were very satisfied with
what they gained from the other party. Neither
felt that they were taken advantage of by the
other party, nor believed that they were in an
advantageous position. No signs of being
inferior or superior were detected from either
side. A possible explanation of this situation
may lie in the fact that the Special Education
Centre of Ranong Province does not depend
on tourism’s economic benefits, but on
government funding. Therefore, the staff
thought that the operation of the centre could
still continue even without volunteer tourists. In
fact, they thought that the volunteer tourists
were temporary guests who come to visit and
give them a hand. For the volunteer tourists,
they stated that they were warmly welcomed by
the staff, which made them feel as if they were
guests, not tourists. Although they had to live in
an unfamiliar environment and take orders from
the staff to do tasks, they did not felt that this
made them inferior. They also realised that the
operation of the centre did not rely on their fees
or on their labour was also found the volunteer
tourists did not think that their wealth and
knowledge from the developed world put them
in a better position than the staff. Instead, they
thought that participating in volunteer tourism at
the centre would allow them to exchange
knowledge of taking care of disabled children
with the staff: something they could share with
the staff and learn about together. This
situation can explain why the actors in this
exchange process have similar levels of power,
as argued by Ap (1991) and Crawford & Novak
(2014).
In addition, the findings of this study do not
support the argument that volunteer tourism
may reinforce inequality between developed
and developing nations, and/or deepen
dichotomies of “them” and “us”, instead of
promoting true cross-cultural understanding
between volunteer tourists and local residents,
as argued by some researchers ( Lo & Lee,
2011; Simpson, 2004; Sin, 2009). This study
found that the perception of the Western
volunteer tourists of the economic inequality
between them and local people played an
important role in influencing them to participate
in volunteer tourism. The volunteer tourists felt
that they were more economically fortunate and
had had better opportunities than the children
at the centre, creating feelings of guilt and a
desire to share these benefits with others who
are less fortunate. They subsequently felt that it
was their responsibility or moral duty, to share
their privileges. During their visit, their
experiences made them more aware of their
potential to help and inspired them to continue
volunteering and contributing to society.
Alongside a desire to lessen inequality by
sharing their privileges (e.g. taking care of the
children at the centre), the volunteer tourists
also sought to learn from the children, which

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
195
they believed to be significant and applicable to
their lives. Examples of such values include:
appreciating what one already has; and
regarding material needs as less important.
The findings suggest that the staff of the centre
were already aware of the inequalities between
them and the volunteer tourists, but interaction
with volunteer tourists did not reinforce this
inequality or make the perception of it larger.
On the contrary, they felt that volunteer tourism
potentially lessened this gap because it served
as an effective means of transferring
knowledge and also promoted cross-cultural
understanding. Whilst cultural differences did
cause some concern among some members of
the community (i.e. inappropriate dressing of
volunteer tourists), such differences were not
new or important.
Moreover, this study is also in agreement with
Proyrungroj’s (2014) study, which found that
Thai residents who hosted Western volunteer
tourists seem to accept the superiority of the
tourists in terms of their wealth and knowledge
without feeling inferior or frustrated. They
believe that they could benefit from such
superiority. Furthermore, the study also agrees
with Kislenko (2004) and Proyrungroj (2015)
that the main reason Thai hosts were not
frustrated with Western tourists is that Thailand
has never been colonised by Western nations;
therefore, Thai locals are free from anti-
Western feeling.
This study supports previous studies (Heuman,
2005; Uriely & Reichel, 2000) that found that
the interactions and relationship between
volunteer tourists and hosts appear to be in a
form of “traditional hospitality”. Evidence of the
main features of the traditional hospitality and
protection provided by hosts to tourists (non-
monetary reciprocities, compliance with the
expectations of hosts, and a performance of
deference) were found in this study. This study
agrees with Uriel & Reichel (2000) that the
nature of volunteer tourism can facilitate
engaging interactions and meaningful
friendships between volunteer tourists and their
hosts, and in such an environment social and
personal ties between both parties can be
easily developed. Although there was financial
exchange between volunteer tourists and hosts
(the volunteer tourists paid for accommodation,
food, and an opportunity to work at the centre),
this was not the main feature of interactions
and relationships between these two parties, as
might be in the case in mass tourism.
As for practical implications, the findings of this
study provide an insight for volunteer tourism
organisations about the nature of interactions
and relationship between volunteer tourists and
their hosts. Specifically, this study provides an
understanding of what each party needs or
expects to gain from volunteer tourism; how
each party acts or interacts with the other to
ensure that their needs/expectations can be
fulfilled; how each party should act and/or what
should they provide for the other party in order
to make their interactions and relationships
balanced, equal and reciprocal. This study can
serve as a case study for volunteer tourism
organisations, hosts, and related stakeholders
by showing how interactions between volunteer
tourists and their hosts can lead each party to
enjoy mutual benefits from participation in
volunteer tourism.
Limitations and direction for future research
This research is underpinned by an interpretive
paradigm utilising qualitative research
methods, and the study is based on only one
case study and a small number of respondents.
Moreover, this study is primarily based on the
researcher’s understanding, and her
interpretations of the respondents and the
researcher’s encounters with respondents. For
these reasons, the findings of this study are
unique to the volunteer tourism at the Special
Education Centre of Ranong province and
cannot necessarily be generalised to other
cases. However, this study does not aim to
generalise its findings, because such an
approach is not applicable to qualitative
research. Instead, it aims to gain rich, in-depth,
holistic understanding of the host-guest
relationship in the context of volunteer tourism;
therefore, it prefers to use “transferability” as a
criterion to ensure its rigour by providing thick
description of the study’s context and setting, in
order to ensure that its findings can be
transferable to other situations, if those
situations are similar to the context of this
study.

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
196
In terms of future research, this study focused
only on the interactions and relationships
between volunteer tourists and their hosts, and
the benefits each party can gain from volunteer
tourism. However, it does not look at how the
children did or did not benefit. They are the
direct aid-recipients of volunteer tourism, and
therefore, more research on the impact of
volunteer tourism on children is needed.
Concerns about the impact of volunteer tourism
programme on the children have been raised.
At the time of conducting the research, there
has been limited study on the impacts of
volunteer tourism on children with disabilities.
This topic can be investigated from the
perspectives of people directly involved with
these children, which include staff of the
institutions responsible for these children, and
their parents. These people are close to the
children and are in a position to observe the
impacts of the volunteer tourists on the
children. The volunteer tourists can serve as
another potential key informant because they
act as care-takers and spend time with the
children. Finally, people who work in the area
of child psychology and/or with children with
disabilities are another group of people who
could provide an insight into this topic area.
References
Ajzen, I., M. Fishbein (1980). Understanding
Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alexander, Z. (2012). International volunteer
tourism in South Africa: an investigation into
the impact on the tourist. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing and Management,
21(7), 779-799.
Andereck, K., N.G. McGehee, S. Lee, & D.
Clemmons (2012). Experience expectations
of prospective volunteer tourists. Journal of
Travel Research, 51(2), 130-141.
Andereck, K. L., & G.P. Nyaupane (2011).
Exploring the nature of tourism and quality
of life perceptions among residents. Journal
of Travel Research, 50 (3), 248–260.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ Perceptions on
Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19(4), 665-690.
Asian Development Bank (2005). An Initial
Assessment of the Impact of the Earthquake
and the Tsunami of December 26, 2004 on
South and Southeast Asia. URL: http://
internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads
/An-Initial-Assessment-of-the-Impact-of-the-
Earthquake-and-Tsunami-of-December-26-
2004-on-South-and-Southeast-Asia.pdf
(Accessed on 01.09.2016).
Barbieri, C., C.A. Santos, & Y. Katsube (2011).
Volunteer tourism: On-the-ground
observations from Rwanda. Tourism
Management, 33(3), 509-516.
Bebbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bimonte, S. (2008). The “tragedy of tourism
resources” as the outcome of a strategic
game: A new analytical framework.
Ecological Economics, 67(3), 457–464.
Bimonte, S., & L.F. Punzo (2011). Tourism,
residents’ attitudes and perceived carrying
capacity with an experimental study in five
Tuscan destinations. International Journal of
Sustainable Development, 14(3/4), 242-261.
Bimonte, S., & L.F. Punzo (2016). Tourist
development and host-guest interaction: an
economic exchange theory. Annals of
Tourism Research, 58, 128-139.
Braun, V., & V. Clarke (2006). Using thematic
analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Broad, S. (2003). Living the Thai life – a case
study of volunteer tourism at the Gibbon
Rehabilitation Project, Thailand. Tourism
Recreation Research, 28(3), 63-72.
Brown, S. (2005). Travelling with a purpose:
understanding the motives and benefits of
volunteer vacationers. Current Issues in
Tourism, 8(6), 479-496.
Brown, S., & A.M. Morrison (2003). Expanding
volunteer vacation participation: an
exploratory study on the mini-mission
concept. Tourism Recreation Research,
28(3), 73-82.
Callanan, M., & S. Thomas (2005). Volunteer
tourism– deconstructing volunteer activities
within a dynamic environment. In Novelli, M.
(Ed.) Niche tourism contemporary issues,
trends and cases. Oxford: Elsevier
/Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 183-200.
Carey, M. (2013). The Social Work
Dissertation: Using Small-scale Qualitative
Methodology. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-
Hill/Open University Press.
Carter, K.A. (2008). Volunteer tourism: an
exploration of the perceptions and

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
197
experiences of volunteer tourists and the
role of authenticity in those experiences
(Unpublished Master’s degree dissertation).
Lincoln University, New Zealand.
Chen, L., & J.S. Chen (2011). The motivations
and expectations of international volunteer
tourists: a case study of “Chinese Village
Traditions”. Tourism Management, 32(2),
435-442.
Cook, K. S., R. Hardin, & M. Levi (2005).
Cooperation without trust? New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Cook, K., & E. Rice (2003). Social exchange
theory. In Delameter, J. (Ed.) The Handbook
of social psychology. New York, NY:
Springer, pp. 53-76.
Coulson, A.B., A.C. MacLaren, S. McKenzie &
K.D. O’Gorman (2014). Hospitality codes
and social exchange theory: The
Pashtunwali and tourism in Afghanistan.
Tourism Management, 45, 134-141.
Cropanzano, R. & M.S. Mitchell (2005). Social
exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management , 31(6), 847-
900.
Crawford, L.A., & K.B. Novak (2014). Individual
and society: Sociological social psychology.
New York, NY: Routledge.
De Kadt, E. (1979). Tourism: Passport to
development? New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2007).The good research
guide: For small-scale social research
projects. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1989).The research act: A
theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. London: Prentice Hall
International.
Fisher, R.J., & L.L. Price (1991). International
pleasure travel motivations and post-
vacation cultural attitude change. Journal of
Leisure Research, 23(3), 193-208.
Fitzpatrick, L. (2007). Vacationing like
Brangelina. URL http://content.time.com/
time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647457,00.ht
ml (Accessed on 01.06.2016)
Fredline, E., & B. Faulkner (2000). Host
community reactions: A cluster analysis.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 763–
784.
Frémeaux, S., & G. Michelson (2011). ‘No
Strings Attached’: Welcoming the existential
gift in business. Journal of Business Ethics,
99(1), 63-75.
Foucault, M. (1978).The history of sexuality:
Volume 1: An introduction. New York, NY:
Vintage Books.
Getz, D., & S. Timur (2005). Stakeholder
involvement in sustainable tourism:
Balancing the voice. In Theobald, W.F. (Ed.)
Global Tourism. New York, NY: Butterworth-
Heinemann/Elsevier, pp. 230-247.
GoAbroad.com (2016). Volunteer Abroad. URL:
http://www.goabroad.com/volunteer-abroad
(Accessed on 01.06.2016)
Goodson, L., & J. Phillimore (2004). The inquiry
paradigm in qualitative tourism research. In
Phillimore, J. L.Goodman (Eds.) Qualitative
research in tourism: Ontologies,
epistemologies and methodologies. London:
Routledge, pp. 30-45.
Gray, N.J., & L.M. Campbell (2007). A
decommodified experience? Exploring
aesthetic, economic and ethical values for
volunteer ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 463-482.
Guiney, T. (2012). Orphanage tourism’ in
Cambodia: When residential care centres
become tourist attractions, Pacific News, 38
July/August, 9-14.
Gursoy, D., C.G. Chi, & P. Dyer (2010). Local’s
attitudes toward mass and alternative
tourism: The case of Sunshine Coast,
Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3),
381–394.
Gursoy, D., & D. Rutherford (2004). Host
attitudes toward tourism. An improved
structural model. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(3), 495–516.
Harlow, S., & G. Pomfret (2007). Evolving
environmental tourism experiences in
Zambia. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3), 184-
209.
Heuman, D. (2005). Hospitality and reciprocity:
Working tourists in Dominica. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(2), 407-418.
Holmes, K., K.A. Smith, L. Lockstone-Binney, &
T. Baum (2010). Developing the dimensions
of tourism volunteering. Leisure Sciences,
32(3), 255-269.
Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. Milton,
Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Jones, A. (2005). Assessing international youth
service programmes in two low income
countries. Voluntary Action: The Journal of

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
198
the Institute for Volunteering Research, 7(2),
87-100.
Junker, B.H. (1960). Fieldwork: An introduction
to the social sciences. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Kaynak, E., & E. E. Marandu (2006). Tourism
market potential analysis in Botswana: A
Delphi study. Journal of Travel Research,
45(2), 227-237.
Kislenko, A. (2004). Culture and customs of
Thailand. London: Greenwood Press.
Knollenberg, W., N.G. McGehee, B. Bynum
Boley & D. Clemmons (2014). Motivation-
based transformative learning and potential
volunteer tourists: Facilitating more
sustainable outcomes. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 22(6), 922–941.
Konovsky, M. A., & S.D. Pugh (1994).
Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
The Academy of Management Journal,
37(3), 656–669.
Kontogeorgopoulou, N. (2016). Forays into the
backstage: Volunteer tourism and the
pursuit of object authenticity. Journal of
Tourism and Cultural Change. URL:
http://www.pugetsound.edu/files/resources/j
ournal-of-tourism-and-cultural-change-
2016.pdf (Accessed on 30.08.2016)
Lee, C., S.K. Kang, P. Long, & Y. Reisinger
(2010). Residents’ perceptions of casino
impacts: A comparative study. Tourism
Management, 31(2), 189–201.
Lepp, A. (2009). Leisure and obligation: An
investigation of volunteer tourists’
experience at Kenya’s Taita Discovery
Center. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(2),
253-260.
Lo, A., & C. Lee (2011). Motivations and
perceived value of volunteer tourists from
Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 32(2),
326-334.
Mathieson, A., & G. Wall (1982). Tourism:
Economic, physical and social impacts. New
York: Longman.
McGehee, N.G., & K.L. Andereck (2009).
Volunteer tourism and the “voluntoured”:
The case of Tijuana, Mexico. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 39-51.
McGehee, N.G., & C. Santos (2005). Social
change, discourse and volunteer tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 760-
779.
McIntosh, A.J., & A. Zahra (2007). A cultural
encounter through volunteer tourism:
Towards the ideals of sustainable tourism?
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 541-
556.
Molm, L. D. (1991). Social exchange:
Satisfaction in power-dependence relations.
American Sociological Review, 56(4), 475–
493.
Molm, L.D., N. Takahashi, & G. Peterson
(2000). Risk and trust in social exchange:
An experimental test of a classical
proposition. American Journal of Sociology,
105(5), 1396-1427.
Molm, L. D., G. Peterson, & N. Takahashi
(2003). In the eye of the beholder:
Procedural justice in social exchange.
American Sociological Review, 68(1), 128-
152.
Morgan, J. (2010). Volunteer tourism: What are
the benefits for international development?
The VolunTourist Newsletter, 6(2). URL:
http://www.voluntourism.org/news-study
andresearch62.html (Accessed on
12.03.2016).
Mostafanezhad, M. (2013).The geography of
compassion in volunteer tourism. Tourism
Geographies: An international journal of
tourism space, place and environment,
15(2), 318-337.
Mostafanezhad, M. (2014). Volunteer tourism
and the popular humanitarian gaze.
Geoforum 54, 111-118.
Nestora, A., P.Yeung, & H. Calderon (2009).
Volunteer travel insights 2009. Bradt travel
guides, Lasso communications. GeckoGo.
URL:
http://www.geckogo.com/volunteer/report20
09 (Accessed on 27.03.2016)
Nunkoo, R., & D. Gursoy (2012). Residents’
support for tourism: An identity perspective.
Annals of Tourism Research 39(1), 243–
268.
Nunkoo, R., & H. Ramkissoon (2012). Power,
trust, social exchange and community
support. Annals of Tourism Research 39(2),
997-1023.
O’ Donoghue, T.A. (2007). Planning your
qualitative research project: An introduction
to interpretivist research in education.
London: Routledge.
Oberg, P., & T. Svensson (2010). Does power
drive our trust? Relations between labor

Proyrungroj, R. (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 16, pp. 177-200
199
market actors in Sweden. Political Studies,
58(1), 143–166.
Ooi, N., & J.H. Laing (2010). Backpacker
tourism: Sustainable and purposeful?
Investigating the overlap between
backpacker tourism and volunteer tourism
motivations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
18(2), 191-206.
Palacios, C.M. (2010). Volunteer tourism,
development and education in a
postcolonial world: Conceiving global
connections beyond aid. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 18(7), 861-878.
Pearce, P. (1994). Tourist-resident impacts:
Examples, explanations and emerging
solutions. In Theobald, W. (Ed.) Global
tourism: The next decade. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 103-123.
Proyrungroj, R. (2013). Orphan volunteer
tourism in Thailand: Volunteer tourists’
motivations and on-site experiences.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research.
DOI:10.1177/1096348014525639
Proyrungroj, R. (2015). The attitudes of Thai
hosts towards western volunteer tourists.
European Journal of Tourism Research, 11,
102-124.
Raymond, E.M., & C.M. Hall (2008). The
development of cross-cultural
(mis)understanding through volunteer
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
16(5), 530-543.
Reisinger, Y. (2012). International tourism:
Cultures and behavior. Oxon: Routledge.
Richter, L.M., & A Norman (2010). AIDS
orphan tourism: A threat to young children in
residential care. Vulnerable Children and
Youth Studies, 5(3), 217-229.
Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for
development: Empowering communities.
Essex: Prentice Hall.
Sharpley, R. (2008). Tourism, tourists and
society. 4th ed. Huntingdon: ELM.
Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of
tourism: A review of the research. Tourism
Management 42, 37-49.
Simpson, K. (2004). ‘Doing development’: The
gap year, volunteer-tourists and a popular
practice of development. Journal of
International Development, 16(5), 681-692.
Simpson, K. (2005). Broad horizons?
geographies and pedagogies of gap year
(Unpublished PhD thesis), University of
Newcastle, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Sin, H.L. (2009). Volunteer tourism – “involve
me and I will learn”? Annals of Tourism
Research, 36(3), 480-501.
Sin, H.L. (2010). Who are we responsible to?
locals’ tales of volunteer tourism. Geoforum
41(6), 983-992.
Smith, V. (1977). Hosts and guests: The
anthropology of tourism. Philadelphia PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Stein, S. M., & T.L. Harper (2003). Power, trust,
and planning. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 23(2), 125–139.
Stoddart, H., & C.M. Rogerson (2004).
Volunteer tourism: The case of habitat for
humanity South Africa. GeoJournal, 60(3),
311-318.
Sutton, Jr W. (1967). Travel and
understanding: Notes on the social structure
of touring. Journal of Comparative
Sociology, 8, 217-223.
Teye, V., S.F. Sönmez, & E. Sirakaya (2002).
Residents’ attitudes toward tourism
development. Annals of Tourism Research,
29(3), 668-688.
Tomazos, K., & R. Butler (2009). Volunteer
tourism: The new ecotourism? Anatolia: An
International Journal of Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 20(1), 196-211.
Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) (2010).
TAT Fine-tunes its 2011marketing strategies
in Europe. URL:
http://www.tatnews.org/tat_release/
detail.asp?id=5169(Accessed on
31.08.2016).
Tourism Research and Marketing (TRAM)
(2008). Volunteer tourism: A global analysis.
Arnhem, Netherlands: ATLAS.
United Nations Environment Programme
(2005). Tsunami Thailand Layout. URL:
http://www.unep.org/tsunami/reports/TSUN
AMI_THAILAND_LAYOUT.pdf (Accessed
on 31.08. 2016).
United Nations Thailand (2008).
Earthquake/Tsunami Victims Relief Efforts,
Department of Disaster Prevention and
Mitigation, Ministry of Interior, Thailand.
URL: http://www.un.or.th/pdf/ddpm_
tsunami.pdf (Accessed on 31.08. 2016).
Uriely, N., & A. Reichel (2000). Working tourists
and their attitudes to hosts. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(2), 267-283.

Host-guest relationship in the context of volunteer tourism.
200
Van den Berghe, P. L., & C.F. Keyes (1984).
Introduction tourism and re-created
ethnicity. Annals of Tourism Research,
11(3), 343–352.
Van der Meer, K. (2007). Perspectives on
ecotourism and volunteer tourism in post
tsunami Khao Lak, Thailand (Unpublished
Master’s degree dissertation). University of
Victoria, Canada.
Vasquez, E. (2010). Do celebs like Jolie inspire
voluntourism? URL:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/08/10/
celebrity.humanitarian.travel/ (Accessed on
01.09.2016)
Ward, C., & T. Berno (2011). Beyond social
exchange theory: Attitudes toward tourists.
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1556-
1569.
Wearing, S. (2001). Volunteer tourism:
Experiences that make difference.
Wallingford: CABI.
Wearing, S., & N.G. McGehee (2013).
Volunteer tourism: A review. Tourism
Management, 38, 120-130.
Zafirovski, M. (2005). Social exchange theory
under scrutiny: A positive critique of its
economic-behaviorist formulations.
Electronic Journal of Sociology, 2, 1-40.
Zahra, A., & A.J. McIntosh (2007). Volunteer
tourism: Evidence of cathartic tourist
experiences. Tourism Recreation Research,
32(1), 115-119.
Zhang, J., H. Xu, & W. Xing (2016). The host-
guest interactions in ethnic tourism, Lijiang,
China. Current Issues in Tourism. DOI:
10.1080/13683500.2016.1178218